Hence, the less government we
have, the better, the fewer laws, and the less confided power. -Ralph
Waldo Emerson

The former International Development
Secretary of the UN, Clare Short, threw a hissy fit when the U.S. announced
it was establishing a four-country coalition to coordinate relief efforts
in the wake of the Asian tsunami disaster. I said, "Hooah!"

The president has been accused of trying
to undermine the United Nations by putting together what is perceived
as a 'rival coalition'. Cool! What took so long?

The UN is a dysfunctional gaggle of
anti-American pampered bureaucrats who have routinely and chronically
mucked up any and all projects over which they assume control.

When the president announced that the
US, Japan, India and Australia would coordinate the world's response Short
and the usual suspects developed a sonic wedgie.

"I think this initiative from America
to set up four countries claiming to coordinate sounds like yet another
attempt to undermine the UN when it is the best system we have got and
the one that needs building up," she said.

She is both right and wrong. Yeah,
it IS another effort to undermine the UN…kinda like the Proliferation
Security Initiative (PSI) which accomplished more to stem the tide of
nuclear weapons proliferation in six to nine months than the UN has in
half a century. "Building up"(which translates to throwing money at the
UN) is like feeding crack cocaine to the NBA.

PSI is a better and ideal model for dealing with the alleged objectives
of a variety of UN entities. It is bewildering that the Bush administration
has not and is not bragging about the remarkable successes of PSI.

The Wall Street Journal wrote about
this underreported gem a year ago. [Read: The
New Multilateralism] Jed Babbin writes about it in his book 'Inside
the Asylum'. However otherwise the silence has been deafening.

There are a number of significant attributes
to the PSI model.

It is not an 'organization'. It is not an office
or building with an executive and a labyrinth of bureaucrats.

It is a mission oriented task force drawing
on available resources from participating coalition members as needed.

It is not impeded by 'process' or extraneous
agenda or ego vetoes.

It is coordinated by, run by, and controlled
by the U.S.

Ms Short's concern of "the US trying
to have a separate operation and not work with the rest of the world through
the UN system," is precisely what this model has and can work…and be effective
(which is the antithesis of the UN).

The Wall Street Journal called it "mix-and-match
multilateralism".

Rather than throw more money at the
terminally corrupt dyspepsia of the UN we could, should, (and arguably
ARE) sidestep UN incompetence and just do what needs to be done better.

PSI has done that. The new disaster
relief coalition can do that. AND, the potential exists (and should be
exploited) to develop subsequent 'coalitions' and 'task forces' to deal
(efficiently and effectively) with tasks the UN has demonstrated an inability
to handle.

There is one school of thought (Congressman
Ron Paul) contending we should "Get out of the UN and get the UN out of
the U.S." I used to subscribe to that position but have since changed…kinda.

I now embrace the counsel of Don Corleone
that "you keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Make no mistake
about it…the UN is an enemy notwithstanding protestations and stroke to
the contrary.

We cannot and should not just walk
away from the UN. However, we should continue to lay the groundwork for
replacing them with an organization of countries that subscribe to common
principles of liberty, freedom and representative government.

Smarter folks than I can figure out
the details but basically it is a three-step process:

1. Continue to 'undermine' UN inefficiency
by doing their job better and more effectively. 2. Attrite UN financial resources by 'redirecting' Multinational
resources to non-UN entities that perform better. Encourage other 'coalition'
members to do likewise. 3. As the UN becomes an unfunded empty shell of diplomats, walk
away and establish a new formal 'coalition'. The new entity still would
not be an 'organization'. It would not require a 'Grand Exalted Secretary
General Poobah'. It would be grounded on 'new multinationalism' focused
on solving problems rather than creating or exacerbating problems.

It could and should work.

Confucius said, "To see what is right,
and not do it, it want of courage, or of principle." This administration
has routinely demonstrated it does not suffer from a "want of courage".
The challenge is therefore, one of "principle".